DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:33:23 +0000, Chris Savage
wrote in
:

On 2007-11-15, Douglas wrote:

Actually Bill... It's all a game. I post a picture and the trolls lift
their heads from slumber and generate traffic to low volume news groups.
This way it makes it easy to seperate the chaff from the hay, so to speak.

Yes. It's all about you.

Could you all please take this to kind of thing to alt.insults-gangbang?
[follow-up set] When posting here, please have at least a tiny bit of
relevant content to relieve the monotony of the insults. Thanks!

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:25:29 GMT, John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:26:21 GMT, Daniel Silevitch
wrote in
:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:34:46 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
Bill Tuthill wrote:

The recommended DSLR workflow seems like a huge chore, not a fun
hobby, with RAW mode and the continual treadmill of Adobe software
upgrades.

You don't /have/ to use that workflow - I believe in getting things right
in the camera and minima post processing. No RAW for me.

With the right software, RAW adds precisely zero extra work. I use
Apple's Aperture, and Adobe's Lightroom does the same thing. I can shoot
in either RAW or JPEG, and either way the software reads them in,
generates preview thumbnails, lets me twiddle with the white balance,
etc. The only thing special I need to do for RAW is budget more disk
space for the bigger files, and in an era of 1 TB drives, that's not a
big deal.

With JPEG there's no need to do *any* post-processing.

Since I use Aperture to sort and categorize my pictures anyways, I don't
have to do anything extra to get a picture based on RAW up on the
screen. Put card in reader, select a project, hit 'import'. That's it.
Exactly the same as JPG.

The difference is that if I've blown a highlight or screwed up the white
balance, I can do a better job of fixing my mistake if the underlying
image is RAW. I don't have to do any explicit post-processing, but if I
decide to, I can do it better with RAW.

(nb: If desired, replace "Aperture" with "Lightroom". Same basic idea.)

-dms

Daniel Silevitch wrote:

With the right software, RAW adds precisely zero extra work. I use
Apple's Aperture, and Adobe's Lightroom does the same thing. I can shoot
in either RAW or JPEG, and either way the software reads them in,
generates preview thumbnails, lets me twiddle with the white balance, etc.

Thanks. I just noticed that the Rebel XT 350D and Nikon D40 can both
shoot full-speed continuous in RAW mode, just for fewer frames than JPEG.

The only thing special I need to do for RAW is budget more disk space
for the bigger files, and in an era of 1 TB drives, that's not a big deal.

True, but offline storage on DVD is an issue.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:09:10 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

To John Navas it is. Because that is the only way he
can depreciate the significance of a photographer having
good tools.

I've obviously touched a nerve. What I've actually said is that
"great images are made by photographers, not cameras". That "cameras
are just tools", and that "there's no one best tool". And, "Different
strokes for different folks." What seems to bug you most is that I take
issue with sweeping generalizations of superiority by SLR advocates.

The odd thing is, I know damned well that John happens
to be a very skilled person in at least one area. He
may not need the best camera around in order to satisfy
his photography needs...

My camera is best for my particular needs. If some other camera were
better for my particular needs, then I'd be using it.

but ask him about test
equipment to analyze modem equipment, and see how many
Brand X tools he uses there!

Actually pretty modest tools most of the time -- there's often no need
for expensive test equipment.

It's all a matter of matching the tool to the job at hand.

When I want to trim the end off some picture frame stock, I'll often use
an inexpensive coping saw instead of dragging out my huge sliding
compound miter saw.

As always, of course, YMMV.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:31:05 -0600, Allen wrote in
:

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

One day I was trying to open a can of frozen orange juice with a Swiss army
knife can opener.

And not succeeding very well. (There's a Mark Twain joke about
circumstantial evidence that applies here.)

Then I remembered that one of the guys there had actually been in the Swiss
army.

Hey, how do you use this thing?

"They only taught us how to kill people with the can opener. We used our
bayonets for the cans."

See! Just like I said. Use the best tool for the job...

Sometime around fifty years ago a columnist for the long-deceased US
Camera did a column about multi-purpose tools. He said the only really
successful one he had ever found was the old-fashioned church key. For
those who don't remember, the church key was a a piece of metal perhaps
4 inches long and 3/4 inch thick that had a can opener on one end and a
bottle opener on the other. Thinking back at the time, I had to agree
with him.

Most of the serious sailors I know (me included) consider a stainless
multi-tool (like Leatherman, although I personally prefer Gerber) to be
essential personal kit.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:31:18 GMT, Matt Ion wrote
in WOa%i.576$PE.259@pd7urf1no:

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

[LOTS OF GOOD STUFF SNIPPED]

There is no reason that photographers would be any
different either. The set of screwdrivers, the set of
chisels or the camera... might all be whatever is handy
for a typical unskilled person, because to them it
simply doesn't make any difference which one is used.

For a truly talented craftsman, it makes a load of
difference.

Sure it does - because the better tool POTENTIALLY gives you more
options. But what defines "better"? My Milwaukee is nearly useless for
drilling in concrete, because it doesn't have the hammer function.

Bravo! Well put!

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

Bill Tuthill wrote:
SMS ???????????? ??? wrote:
DSLR partisans seem like the defenders of film, because
they don't have a lot of firm evidence that their workflow
is superior, except at high ISO or some arcane usage.
LOL, high ISO is "arcane usage?"

Yes. Back when I was doing wet photography, the only time I bought
and push-processed 800 speed film (NPZ or Portra) was when my kids
were in a Nutcracker performance, once a year. That's pretty arcane.

Alas, the world does not revolve around what you did with film photography.

The problem of P&S shutter lag has been mostly solved in recent models.

Nope. It's improved, but it's still present, and it effectively
eliminates the ability for live-action shots.

On 16 Nov 2007 06:18:43 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
Scott W wrote

This argument just does not hold water. I shoot for a number of years
with a point and shoot, when I started using a DSLR my photos got
better. I still shoot with a P&S from time to time, and I still am
getting better photos when I use a DSLR.

That's you. A DSLR better suits the way you work, all well and good,
but that doesn't make it a universal truth -- my FZ8 has huge advantages
over DSLR in handling, size, weight, zoom range, and lens speed, that
make it possible for me to get shots I wouldn't get with an SLR.

That's patent nonsense.

Actually simple fact.

An SLR can go from 5mm to 600mm, as fast as f1.2, macro to 1:1 or
even greater magnification, with many times the zoom speed and
focusing speed of your P&S.

Which lens (brand and model)?
1st hint: Such a lens doesn't exist, not even remotely.
2nd hint: There's no time to change lenses when shooting fast action.
3rd hint: Changing lenses in less than ideal conditions is a bad idea.

Your FZ8 cannot do all of that. Its advantage is only in size and
portability.

In fact no 35 mm SLR lens even comes close to the Leica super-zoom lens
on the FZ8, not only in terms of size and portability, but also in terms
of lens speed, zoom range, optical quality, and stabilization.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

In article , John Navas
wrote:

Hey post away with "your" version of the truth, it appears to be making you
happy! ;-) Good for you.

My "version of the truth" is actual experience with the camera,
not what I think some website numbers might mean.

yet your version of the truth about lenses is *not* based on actual
experience, and you discard those who DO have actual experience with
the specific lenses.

In article , John Navas
wrote:

With the right software, RAW adds precisely zero extra work. I use
Apple's Aperture, and Adobe's Lightroom does the same thing. I can shoot
in either RAW or JPEG, and either way the software reads them in,
generates preview thumbnails, lets me twiddle with the white balance,
etc. The only thing special I need to do for RAW is budget more disk
space for the bigger files, and in an era of 1 TB drives, that's not a
big deal.

With JPEG there's no need to do *any* post-processing.

never?

his point is that with modern tools, there is no difference in post
processing raw or jpeg, however, using raw produces a much better
result. many times, the amount of post processing is negligble,
regardless of format.